Skip to main content
Glama

SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town

by online.sasame

agent_invoice_issue

Idempotent

Issue a SaSame SRL-signed THIRD-PARTY AGENT TRANSACTION RECEIPT after provider delivery. The legacy tool name is retained for API compatibility: this is a transaction-confirmation receipt, not a fiscal/tax invoice. The provider signs provider_receipt_challenge (identical to the legacy provider_invoice_challenge). The receipt binds mutually accepted terms, delivery and amount. If SaSame SRL itself sells a service, its separate accounting rail issues the normal SaSame SRL business invoice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
work_order_idYes
signature_base64Yes
external_invoice_refNoOptional provider-side invoice/reference number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description adds that the provider signs provider_receipt_challenge and that the receipt binds mutually accepted terms. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction. Could mention if any state changes occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, each adding value: purpose, legacy clarification, signing mechanism, and exception for SaSame's own services. No redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Purpose is clear but parameter details are lacking (33% schema coverage). No output schema, but description does not hint at return value. Adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for full automation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only external_invoice_ref described). The description does not clarify work_order_id or signature_base64 beyond names. It mentions provider signs a challenge but does not link to signature_base64 format or expected input.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states it issues a SaSame SRL-signed THIRD-PARTY AGENT TRANSACTION RECEIPT after provider delivery, distinguishes it from a fiscal/tax invoice, and clarifies the legacy name. This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like agent_invoice_attest_settlement and agent_invoice_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use (after provider delivery) and when not to (for SaSame's own services, use separate accounting rail). It does not explicitly list alternative sibling tools but provides clear contextual boundaries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 94 tools spanning overlapping concepts (multiple readiness/audit/grade tools, many status checkers, deprecated aliases like trust_* vs observation_*), agents will frequently struggle to pick the right one. While each tool is individually distinct, the sheer volume and conceptual overlap (e.g., audit_mcp, readiness_report, verify_mcp_ready, lookup_readiness, recommend_mcp, subscribe_grade_changes) create high misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with underscores, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (audit_mcp, verify_mcp_ready, claim_start, check_engagement) while others are noun-first (receipt_issue, meter_open, work_order_open, agent_invoice_status). Deprecated aliases like trust_compare vs observation_compare further break consistency, though the majority remain readable.

Tool Count1/5

94 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single server, even one with broad ambitions like 'observatory + town'. The calibration notes 50+ as extreme mismatch; this server far exceeds that. Many tools are highly specific (e.g., factory_resolve_dead_letter, visit_touch_status, start_here) and could be consolidated or split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of domains (auditing, claiming, receipts, meters, escrow, work orders, gold rush, town, analytics) and offers many CRUD-like operations, but several lifecycle gaps exist: no cancel/close for work orders (only open/accept/deliver/accept_delivery), escrow (only open/attest/status), or meters (only open/charge/status). Given the massive scope, important operations are missing, though core workflows are present.

Resources